Search for: "State v. Marks"
Results 5421 - 5440
of 19,483
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Aug 2016, 7:04 am
Steele v. [read post]
10 May 2010, 5:06 pm
Moreover, it is also now clear that the state has a positive obligation to protect individuals from media intrusion into their private lives. [read post]
9 Jul 2024, 6:07 pm
By Mark A. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 1:33 pm
Mark Burck, for Hiawatha Henry, Appellee.Edward Hubbard, Patrick E. [read post]
22 Sep 2020, 12:32 pm
Hamilton International Ltd. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2008, 3:15 pm
Via the IPKat's informative friend Stephanie Bodoni (Bloomberg) comes news of the European Court of Justice hearing today in Case C-343/07 Bavaria N.V. and Bavaria Italia Srl v Bayerischer Brauerbund e.V. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 12:01 am
See One Industries, LLC v. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 8:55 pm
Here is the abstract: In recent years, many prominent originalists have attempted to demonstrate that the holding in Brown v. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 11:45 am
Perry (challenging California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 7:07 am
” Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 606 (internal quotation marks omitted). [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 3:09 am
As the CAFC stated in Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. [read post]
25 Aug 2017, 11:09 am
State v. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 3:07 pm
” In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th at 327 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Clemens v. [read post]
3 Jan 2008, 9:23 am
” Thus, a trademark owner may only seek redress if another’s use of a registered mark on a different set of goods and services is likely to cause confusion with the owner’s use of the mark in connection with its registered goods.The Ninth Circuit reiterated its holding in Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2008, 10:30 am
Grand Canyon West Ranch, LLC v. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 12:45 pm
In Brnovich v. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 9:44 am
The brief was filed in State v. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 6:53 am
United States. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 3:49 am
A claim of conversion of money is proper “when funds designated for a particular purpose are used for an unauthorized purpose” (East Schodack Fire Co., Inc. v Milkewicz, 140 AD3d 1255, 1256 [internal quotation marks omitted]). [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 2:30 am
The Respondent in Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. ll, FA1007001336979 (Nat. [read post]